RichardY

Sane meaning health, and health meaning virtue. Yeah I'm fairly insane, not totally... I think.... Things like smoking and obesity are some prominent ones...... I'd say government as well.... Madness being relative. The majority of the world seems to be insane though, well at least there's company. I don't think I've really seen an online persona that is not in someway insane.

Own words? Difficult, maybe impossible. Mutually assured destruction. Sort of like the scorpion crossing the river, on a frogs back.

I like the sound of Cross of Iron better. Victoria Cross sounds too, false, for lack of a better word. Had an ancestor that probably, personally signed the death warrants of the most people in English history, but I could be mistaken. I guess a clown soaked in blood is not that good in selling burgers. "Killer Clowns from outer space!" Gone for more of the chic look.

@Serotoninluv @seeking_brilliance Same thing could be said about driving a vehicle, the unconscious acts much quicker, then the conscious mind. I remember going to see a shuttle launch at night, was one NASA did after a few decades, considering one of the first launches at night blew up. On paper it is safer to do launches at night, but on superstition they hadn't done another for a while. Anyway on the way to Coco Beach a large Deer ran out on the road, the driver managed to swerve to avoid what seemed like literally inches from the vehicle. The freewill question should I swerve to avoid, or have the torso come crashing through the screen is largely pointless, whether I steer left or right, so what. The duality itself in language, retracts from freewill or consciousness. How is freewill or consciousness a question for science? Given that science is about knowing, at least on the macro level?

Like the movie Ghostbusters. The Marshmallow man.

If you can get rid of the self temporarily or permanently, i.e to be selfless. Then what is left can be much quicker and more functional. I'd imagine this would be an enormous advantage to trying to perfect a craft in martial arts. JEDI reflexes!!!!! The weird thing I'm trying to resolve is, I agree the self doesn't logically exist. But here I am. Why am I conscious of me and not you, wouldn't be me. I mean especially if the universe is material. (which has been debunked). Anyway, to me integration is to fill a "void". Kind of like, well I've played this game, but it's not enough. Direct experience is preferable, knowledge has a certain duality to it, to be resolved. Tactile experience, very important if you're doing lens grinding. (i.e Spinoza's work) But yeah I appreciate your response as well, I like to use references to try and leverage more knowledge.

It's a small world after all!

@Pouya The Ego is absolute time. Without absolute time, you don't exist. "Only a Sith deals in Absolutes!!!!" Can see the phenomena when people are drunk or sleepwalk and have no memory. Whether Nihilism is completely true/ the truth, that meaning does not exist, and the best you can do is devote yourself to a higher cause then yourself. The strongest person may in fact be a synth or radical empiricist. Any unexplainable knowledge of the future pure delusion. There is an empirical self as an entity, but whether the person is conscious or not... -------------------------------------------------------- Like the movie Videodrome!!! Yeah I have heard of a few people getting brain cancer and dying, politics & betrayal seem to be correlated a bit.

One the Buddhist truths right? Life is suffering.

@Jack River Similar to Spinoza's way of thinking. The section on emotion(duality) towards the end is interesting, which is why he calls his main work "The Ethics" (plural, a duality). The section at the beginning not so much, if everything is one then a duality emerges. I like Ralston's "The Book of Not Knowing" better, he seems to be more aware of the negative aspects of expediency, as well as positive. Leibniz's work is interesting as it seems to improve on Spinoza. So to answer your question, yes because I can compare to existing writing. But in terms of communicating knowledge, and not further enhancing error, I think it is something to be careful of, perhaps unavoidable (in which case Hegel is right). As a debugging book, I can't really emphasize how useful I found "The Book of Not Knowing", in the absence of other quality material, which is why, if done wrong, damage is even more enhanced. Hegel's work(Heard about the philosopher on Fallout New Vegas... bit of a gamer) that built on Spinoza work, with a master race being, chosen to dominate the World probably didn't help much. (Hegelian Dialectic) Anyway still looking to widen my brevity of knowledge, and try to integrate it, at least intellectually.

@Jack River Yeah I avoid Coherentism. I think it's like the Justified Belief Theory of Truth(as a process), except that instead of having one core belief that may or may not be conscious, you have two conflicting ones. I think it is more likely if you have a collectively dominant Ego, where as JBT tends to be more individualistic. Infinitism would require dropping all beliefs, well good luck with that. Both Hegel and Spinoza, that seem to have a coherence theory of truth, end up contradicting themselves. I don't agree with the concept of the self, I do however agree with the term ownership. Not sure what either really means, I guess you could view the Ego as a filter(obscuring), polluting or concentrating what it perceives. Not really sure on the whole mechanism. The best metaphysic I've found so far is Leibniz Monadology, also seems to be very similar to Jung's Aion, so in the absence of better suggestions I'll stick with that. Talks about Coherentism a bit in the following video.

Been juggling ideas around on an abstract level. Pretty sure that Evil is not a concept, sometimes confuse it as concept (should probably try to affirm that as a truth, meat brain or soul). However the word still exists. To resist Evil is to fight it, at least on the level of a purely internal mind game, this is futile. Pretty sure good is related to, or at least broken down into multiple concepts, but for the sake of universality to have any meaning the Good must either exist as God or an Aristotelian golden mean. The distinction itself is irrelevant, it's meaning however is profound. Whether as a mean or God, the empirical self will try to attain the mean or necessary good, the Ego in it self is not necessarily good, but useful in the concentration of power. Memory is a projection of the past and future, and is not real.

Carl Jung had multiple partners. His wife had 5 or 6 children something like that, his wife was then kind of screwed because she obviously had the children to look after. Then he had an open relationship with his work colleagues. The dice are slightly loaded, so more dominant("Alpha") women will tend to have sons. More dominant men, daughters. I think because as people higher up in society tended to be male, having daughters is a more secure reproduction strategy, with the excess resources. If you're poor or have much restraint, having more daughters makes no sense in a resource poor environment. Women weren't considered people(or at least equivalent of sons) in Greece I've heard up until modern times. But basically a guy will generally bang multiple women if he has the opportunity. But won't tolerate it the other way round, if you have value to him, at which point leave.

Men have a higher sex drive then women, but are generally better able to restrain it. Sleeping with multiple partners was often a death sentence in the distance past, STD, high infant mortality, I remember seeing a tv documentary about a Roman Bathhouse in Syria, that had thousands of baby skeletons in the catacombs. Syphilis I think incapacitated more soldiers then actual combat did, in the modern world. RISK vs REWARD. I think with men they can be more easily destroyed then broken, otherwise they are not men, and defeat in battle usually meant death anyway. Sleeping with multiple women was often considered effeminate, especially if they were slaves. Even says so at the beginning of Meditations by Marcus Aurelius. With Genghis khan they were "brides". Some cultures did and do permit more wives for a warrior caste.

The study of language I think is called Philology. Love of Logic. Skip to the end for a short suggestion. ---------------------------- Looking a bit at the History of Philosophy, my own understanding, is that after Bertrand Russel & analytical philosophy failed with attempts to construct necessarily true propositions in language, modelled on some of Leibniz's work, although Bertrand Russel is also scathing of criticism of him for justifying the oppression of Prussian peasants(The Best of all possible Worlds), and the idea of a table with multiple souls. For instance the statement, "I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti." Did he actually eat his liver, as in his organ, Or his liver as in given food. Logical Positivism (Empiricists/Synths). There is no Analytic- Synthetic distinction. Its all empiricism(synthetic/tabula rasa). Universality exists as a potentiality. People are good because they are good, or bad because... bad. Any phenomena of freewill is the result of emergentism, as heat is the result of friction. The issue I see with it is while the propositions maybe largely true, it can lead to a rationalism where things maybe true, but not integrated. Things can not exist in the same space at the same time. Metaphysics is pointless or mute. Or worse an attempt by the weak, to undermine the strong, as part of a Nietzschean Will to Power. Why be good? A prominent contemporary example on Youtube would be Stefan Molyneux. Analytical Philosophy. Being is what is actual. Any attempts to articulate it in language is futile, or at least has failed so far. The Bad or Evil is a deprivation of the good, which is God. (Thomas Aquinas) There are however numerous ways of articulating being, so, I'm kind of uncertain here. People may still be empiricists however, unconsciously so, 1984, Spinoza's The Ethics or The Book of Not Knowing (referred indirectly to as, expedient). Psychologically I tend towards the analytical than the synthetic. Although would like to align myself more with the synthetic, or positive psychology as a way of being, or perhaps functioning. Science. (To know) Based on certainty, and hypothesis, that maybe falsifiable or wrong. Philosophy is not based on language. Which is expressed as a dualism in language. Language is also largely related to power plays. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To be better learned, not more learned. - Montaigne Shakespeare I guess if you want to play around. Derrida(haven't read) probably good, for smashing things up, continuing Nietzsche's work. Jung is good for symbolism. Aristotle, can be useful with his conception of catharsis.

Resistance is futile.

$200 is not much compared to hotel rooms. If you were real desperate you could hitchhike, surprised by the number of girls that do it, more so then men, especially couchsurfing. I would be highly reluctant. I kind of hitchhiked once, in Spain, was trying to get a local bus, but all local service had been cancelled. Anyway a young woman offered me a lift to the local town. If it had been me I would be highly suspicious about offering a stranger a lift, especially if I had children with me, which she did.

If survival is conscious you can't be happy. If happiness is conscious, that might not be good for survival. Either there is some form of emergent chaos, and there is no metaphysical foundation to reality. Or God is the server of humanity and existence. The Book Ecclesiastes, refers to vanity/emptiness.

Lineman for the county.

Just when you mentioned Ghandi. He went from passive resistance, to an active participation in politics, which lead to his assassination. I mean force as violence, and not as effort. Besides Christ said render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Curious about how someone can exercise authority, and whether ultimate authority, has to be violence.

Scribd is really ace for books. Quite Cheap at $8.99 per month, audio is really useful as I get distracted too easily. Very nearly finished listening to "Mastery" thought it was ok, was put off by him talking about social justice at one point, but I think what he says is generally correct, but not revelatory. Although he referenced Jung, and being a marine flight instructor and martial artists, gives him in my opinion, a lot of credit. Problem with me is I often see/hear the words, but they mean nothing to me. With a three hour book can't go into much detail, unless it is very specific. I thought "The Book of Not Knowing" was good (a book I would listen to again), Genius of Being is also a good book to listen to. The focus on positive psychology is probably good for productivity at least, maybe reread ''The Six-Pillars of Self-Esteem'' (I haven't read that for years).

I would say voting in a political election, is the initiation of force. I don't however subscribe to the NAP (Non Aggression Principle), some times comes up on libertarian forums.

Without the conception of Good & Evil, would meaning even be possible?